Thread (15 messages) 15 messages, 3 authors, 2011-03-26

Re: [PATCH V12 2/4] ptp: Added a clock that uses the eTSEC found on the MPC85xx.

From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-03-26 13:24:07
Also in: linux-api, linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree, lkml, netdev

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 02:30:04PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 08:57 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
quoted
+/*
+ * Register access functions
+ */
So what are the locking rules on the functions below? I assume the
etsects->lock needs to be held prior to calling, so that should be made
explicit in a comment.
Yes, you are right. I'll add comments.
quoted
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_ctrl,   tmr_ctrl);
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_add,    etsects->tmr_add);
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_prsc,   etsects->tmr_prsc);
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_fiper1, etsects->tmr_fiper1);
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_fiper2, etsects->tmr_fiper2);
+	set_alarm(etsects);
+	gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_ctrl,   tmr_ctrl|FS|RTPE|TE);
Does any of the above need a lock should an irq land in the middle of
the writes?
Since these interrupts first must be enabled, I think it unlikely that
an IRQ could occur. However, it can't hurt to add the lock, either.

Thanks,

Richard
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help